We were quoted as a recognised authority on Criminal Costs in a clients recent, self-penned, appeal. (We were named alongside more appropriate experts in the form of Crimeline and Tony Edwards). They were successful. The LAA do not, however, seem motivated enough to pursue the matter to its logical end by way of application to certify a point of principle. What follows therefore is a single ICAs view, which is in no way binding. Rather than resolve the matter finally by way of PoP it seems their intention to try apply the same erroneous interpretation again, and again, and again. So better forewarned.
The LAA “voided” some multiple PACE claims for the same cleint. Not because they were wrongly claimed second matters, developing out of one initial DSCC referral, but due to the lack of a second, new DSCC reference number. We, like the 2 others, do not think this is a contract requirement (though if the DSCC will give you one it might save you this hassle). The only “48-hour logging requirements” relate to:
a voluntary, pre-arranged interview
third party instructions or
request for advice and assistance by a client whilst at the Police Station on another matter.
Wish it were always so easy.
Delighted to see common sense prevail. There is no reference in the contract at all to a second DSCC number, but the number will eventually be of importance to the LAA as it acts in effect as a purchase order number, and as such is a very useful tool against fraud. I would agree with your parting advice however, it is easier to comply with the LAA’s extra-contractual musings than it is to fight, at your own personal, emotional and financial cost, a perverse audit result.
The Criminal Contract is no longer fit for purpose.
I similarly agree with your closing remark